Before the first juror is selected or witness called, a decision allowing a confessed killer to argue he believes the slaying of one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers was a justified act aimed at saving unborn children has upended what most expected to be an open-and-shut case.

Some abortion opponents are pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Scott Roeder tell a jury his slaying of Wichita doctor George Tiller was voluntary manslaughter. Tiller’s colleagues and abortion rights advocates are outraged and fear the court’s actions give a more than tacit approval to further acts of violence.

This is an interesting issue, but off the top of my head, the judge’s ruling may be legally correct — but only because he doesn’t yet know what the evidence will be. It’s very hard for me to believe that a voluntary manslaughter instruction will ultimately be given, however.

Here’s the basic principle (and I’m oversimplifying): you can’t be convicted of murder if you have an honest belief that your actions were necessary to prevent someone else from committing an unlawful killing. Under Kansas law, it appears that the killing must have been “imminent.”

If your belief was reasonable, it’s a justified killing. Say, for example, you are a customer in a robbery, and the robber raises his gun to kill the clerk, so you kill the robber. That’s a justified killing. Not guilty.

If your belief was unreasonable, it’s voluntary manslaughter. It’s still a crime, but it’s not murder. (It’s hard to come up with a simple example of this that clearly illustrates this concept, because people will argue about whether the belief was reasonable or justified, depending on the fact pattern.)

Roeder’s trial is in the jury selection stage. No evidence has been presented. As I understand the news reports (which are really quite bad and all over the map), it looks like the judge has already ruled that the killing is not justified, because Tiller’s abortions were legal. (The Wall Street Journal article suggests otherwise, but I think it’s wrong based on other articles I have read, e.g. here. I think the WSJ reporter doesn’t understand the arguments.) Thus, Roeder’s killing was unreasonable as a matter of law. He can’t legally get an acquittal based on the argument that he needed to kill Tiller to save babies.

As for the manslaughter charge, the judge is in a different posture. He hasn’t heard any evidence, so he doesn’t know whether Roeder would be able to argue that he honestly believed his actions were necessary to prevent an imminent killing. The stories say that the judge is skeptical, and rightly so.

Interestingly, if the killing had happened in Tiller’s office, the imminence would be far less of an issue.

To me, the more interesting and problematic issue is this: what if Roeder knew that the killing(s) he hoped to prevent were legal — but he honestly disagreed? In that case, I believe, there is no mitigation and no voluntary manslaughter instruction. (For the legal types, this is a “mistake of fact” vs. a “mistake of law” issue.) [UPDATE: But see UPDATE below.] None of the articles I read confront that issue — but that, and not the imminence of the abortions, is the real issue, it seems to me.

Of course, there’s always nullification. The instructions don’t matter when the jury has decided not to follow the instructions to begin with. And so I pose this question to the radical libertarian Balko fans who support abortion: the jury could still nullify. How do you like nullification now?

UPDATE: I wrote this post in a hurry this morning and I’m not entirely happy with the way I expressed the analysis — especially the comment about the “mistake of fact” vs. “mistake of law” issue. Don’t hold me to that language. I think this is a very cutting edge issue with few clear precedents and I’ll have to think about it more.

A commenter points me to an analysis by Paul Cassell at Volokh that agrees with the prosecution on the question of imminence. I agree that the instruction may not ultimately be given, but I disagree that the answer is obvious. The key is the unreasonableness of the belief: you might unreasonably believe that the danger is imminent even if it isn’t.

I still think the more interesting question is whether the defendant must subjectively and honestly believe that the killing he is preventing is unlawful. And then, unlawful according to whom? What if he knows these abortions are considered lawful, but he truly believes them to be unlawful under U.S. law . . . but he thinks the courts have it wrong?

The (presumably pending) abortions were not imminent, hence not manslaughter. If Dr. Tiller had been killed in the hallway, on his way to perform an abortion, maybe. The killer deprived Dr. Tiller of his opportunity to change his mind about doing the procedures.

Nullification, it seems to me, would enter into the discussion when he claims that he was serving some higher good in committing the murder; this might get him a hung jury the first time.

To me, the more interesting and problematic issue is this: what if Roeder knew that the killing(s) he hoped to prevent were legal — but he honestly disagreed? In that case, I believe, there is no mitigation and no voluntary manslaughter instruction. (For the legal types, this is a “mistake of fact” vs. a “mistake of law” issue.) …

I don’t see how there is any sort of mistake in a case where you know what the law is but don’t agree.

You wrote that the judge has ruled that the abortions the victim performed were legal. Is that something Mr. Roeder can argue as a matter of fact? There have been reports of very late-term abortions and failed abortions where delivered infants have been left to die. Could Roeder delve into the doctor’s records to establish the legality of the doctor’s abortions?

… Say, for example, you are a customer in a robbery, and the robber raises his gun to kill the clerk, so you kill the robber. That’s a justified killing. Not guilty.

So if the robber just brandishes a gun in order to compel the clerk to hand over the money you aren’t entitled to shoot him? You have to have a reasonable belief that the robber is actually about to shoot the clerk? This is a little surprising to me although I suppose it makes sense that starting a gunfight in that situation isn’t necessarily the best option.

was the belief that killing the doctor was needed to prevent imminent harm to a third party reasonable is a question of fact, and the mistaken belief that killing the doctor was needed to prevent imminent harm is a mistake of fact.

but a mistaken belief that abortion is illegal is a mistake of law.

[knowing abortion to be legal but disagreeing with it is not a mistake at all]

It’s my opinion that abortion — as it is commonly practiced — is murder. If it were up to me, it would be outlawed. But this is a country of laws, not of men. I’m not the King of America, and hopefully, we will never have one.

If Roeder was willing to slaughter Dr. Killer in his own church, you would think he was such a maniac he would be willing do die for his cause, like a jihadist would. Apparently not. But no matter; IMHO, he should be treated as if he was.

In the interest of disclosure, I am very much Pro-Life, as I have documented. And I am definitely Pro-Life “late term“. (CSPT links because my site doesn’t have the feed-back, but you can find the same articles on my site.) But I do not, at all, support the killing of abortion doctors. More disclosure, I don’t believe in Murder 1, Murder 2, Man 1, Man 2, etc for people who murder. I believe you murder someone, you forfeit your right to live. And, while I believe abortion is murder, that is not the law. The wrong-headed SCOTUS decision made certain that would not be our law. I could get more into this but it’s basically periphery.

Given the law, I could see where Scott Roeder could argue a voluntary manslaughter case here. So long as Tiller was alive and had his clinic open, Tiller’s act of baby murder was always imminent and always guaranteed to happen. I don’t think he can win such an argument, given the heavy media coverage in Kansas about the late-term abortions Tiller did and the court decisions. Yes, Roeder believes abortion is murder, but no, that is not the law. And many who believe abortion should be legal also believe late term abortion kills a child, but again, that’s not the law (in Kansas, anyway). And that was widely known.

Roeder went vigilante, acting in desparation due to Kansas Supreme Court decisions. So he knew the Kansas Supreme Court decided Tiller was acting legally. Does that mean Roeder thought Tiller was within the law? Not necessarily. There are a great many SCOTUS decisions about constitutionality I strongly believe are very wrong. A great many unconstitutional things have been deemed constitutional. In the same way, Roeder could’ve viewed the Tiller practice illegal and murder within the framework of the law, setting aside the Kansas Supreme Court decision. And this is where the “unreasonable belief” statute comes into play.

Is it unreasonable to believe abortion is murder? I don’t think so. Is it unreasonable to believe late-term abortion is illegal? I don’t know the law but I know the Kansas Supreme Court decision. But that doesn’t doesn’t change the “reasonableness” of a position. Supreme Courts do, indeed, get things wrong. But in courts of law, knowing a SC decision likely makes a belief unreasonable in regards to extra-legal action.

If Roeder is allowed to argue voluntary manslaughter, I could see a jury nullifying the judge’s order and finding voluntary manslaughter instead of murder. I could also see a hung jury over murder/manslaughter. But I cannot see any jury acquitting.

nullification? I’m all for it. The current rules on nullification are a gross violation of the 6th and 14th amendments. Prosecutors and judges are very aware that if they did follow the constitution and didnt immediately cry for and declare (respectively) “mistrial” the instant a nullification defense was presented that thered be a lot of innocent rulings in cases where unjust laws are present (hint hint, 1 reason and 1 reason only that nullification defenses arent allowed, the war on some drugs would end about a month later as the conviction/plea bargain rate would drop off a cliff).
would i vote not guilty in this specific case if i was on the jury and a nullification defense was presented? Hell and no.

In the late 80s participated in a good number of “rescue missions” (sitting in front of a clinic shutting it down for the day while others offer help w/ the pregnancy to the women waiting).

These were done once the prolife movement found out that a certain percent, statistically, of women who don’t have their abortion on the scheduled day, for any reason, won’t return and will have the child. (Forgot what the percent used to be and don’t know it now.) Later due to higher penalties too few people signed up for us to be able to shut down the clinic for the day, so people weren’t going to sign up for jail just to “protest” for a few hrs – IMO why the rescues stopped.

In one of these rescue missions, the judge allowed the necessity defense, the trial took like three weeks and the 48 of us were acquitted of trespass because we were allowed that defense. (We were found guilty of resisting arrest for going limp.) Best part is that at least one woman – that we know of – decided to let her child live because of that day.

Along with the imminence and reasonableness problems, isn’t the “killing” question going to be difficult? Depending on the wording of the statute (something I’m too busy to look up atm (but apparently not too busy to comment about)), it may be nearly impossible to establish that the voluntary manslaughter factors can even be raised where the potential victim is not technically a person.

Nullification is always a possibility because we citizens trust other citizens more than they trust government agents like prosecutors and judges.

That’s the the way it should be and why we have juries. Yes, juries get hoodwinked sometimes but the government often has unsavory motives. It works the other way too – Scooter Libby’s conviction by a jury was a miscarriage of justice.

Do some research into the origins of the Bill of Rights to see why juries are a defense against tyranny.

In this case, I trust the jury to ignore the defendant’s arguments and if the evidence is clear, convict.

The question of what happens to an infant-born-alive could be material. The defense might give away every second of the fetus’ life right up until separation from the mother while viable. And still have a cause. I believe that killing or allowing to die an infant in that situation is illegal.
I hope.
And if Roeder hangs his hat on the born-alive situation, he could make it work.

That would make for a very bad precedent, this is the way political disagreements are settled in law and order, support interrogation, you are obvious
a murderer, oppose illegal immigration, incite to murder, no game

AW, I used to love Law and Order, back when the show was much more realistic and defendants did not regularly confess everything at the last moment. Convictions were not always likely, and the perpetrator was often realistic. They weren’t talking about what a ‘cancer’ it is that Republicans have radio shows and it wasn’t about Catholics or whit supremacists running around murdering everyone.

Richard, I think if the infant was born alive and dying right then and there it would be acceptable to kill the doctor and save the baby, but killing someone because you expected them to let a born alive baby to die in the future? That’s a tougher sell.

I can’t imagine how Berkeley would interpret this kind of precedent. Can they blow up baby killers? What about George Bush? code pink has those ads asking the Muslim brotherhood to kidnap the president. Abortion bombers are the only real example of this kind of disregard for our laws on the right.

It’s very rare. I don’t know if God is going to tell this man he did a good job. but I hope juries send him to prison.

I think ian is right that murder boy is being sort of a cowardly murder boy by not owning up to his murderous intent.

Comment by happyfeet

I don’t understand this argument.

Of course someone could think it’s justified to kill someone and want to fight spending time in jail. Maybe he thinks going to jail is for doing wrong, and doesn’t think it was wrong to kill an abortionist?

That he’s fighting his case with his best argument doesn’t prove anything to me about his courage. I do disagree with him on killing abortionists, but it’s a rational POV. I think some social liberals have a very hard time understanding the core problems inherent in abortion. You’re killing something that can be argued to be a person, and that leads to a lot of difficult moral dilemmas.

If someone sent you back in time to a week before 9/11, and you knew where the killers were and killed them instead, would you turn yourself into the authorities? I wouldn’t.

Hello Mr. A.W. nobody had even mentioned this sick in the head Don Spitz twist so I contributed that to the conversation.

you are welcome.

you want I can quote from the article. Ok I will. brb.

Ok here it is:

The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers, said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to quietly observe the court proceedings.

“I am flabbergasted, but in a good way,” Spitz said of the judge’s decision.

Spitz acknowledged Wilbert’s decision may influence some people who in the past wouldn’t kill abortion providers because they risked a sentence of death or life imprisonment. “It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk,” he said.

Dudtin it’s preposterous that he was killing this guy for any other reason than being a sick in the head nutcase what was murdering people cause of he has a sick and twisted idea that it would please his god. He’s a sick sick murderous terrorist. End of story.

This a former Montana militia man we’re talking about here, he regards the whole system as corrupt, using the civil disobedience argument, which is horrible, in this case, he should face his punishment, fight the power and all that. Interesting that you bring up the prevention argument, they did that on L&O, the first episode
after 9/11. naturally they convicted the good Samaritan in this case. Probably in the midwest
he would get off

Yeah, you’re right happyfeet. I was just seeing if I could goad you. No offense intended.

I personally don’t even believe in hell for most or perhaps any people. But a traditional Christian might think Jesus sends abortionists to suffer for all infinity, which is more harsh than this murder.

My understanding is that under Illinois law, what he was doing was illegal, or at least there were questions about whether he was obeying the law, and the governor, Sebelous, was not raising a finger to stop him, or even investigate.

So basically the law was supposed to protect these babies, and it wasn’t. now that factual premise might be wrong, but lets take it as true for the sake of argument. is it wrong, then, to act on your own?

i mean normally if you go back to the old lockean explanation for self-defense it goes like this. normally in the state of nature you have a right to self-defense. entering into civil society, you give it up. but sometimes you are in an urgent situation where you just can’t wait for the agents of civil society to act, so you take things into your own hands.

But if that is the logic of defending yourself while you wait for the police to arrive, well, what if you know the police have deliberately chosen not to come at all?

And if you are about to say still “tough,” let’s throw something else into that. what if a city said “from now on, if there is a crime in a certain part of the city, we just aren’t going to send any cops.” now in that situation, certainly you are fully justified in taking the law into your own hands, right?

so how would the tiller killing be different.

Of course that is based on a factual premise that is in dispute, so that might be an out. but i will honeslty say i am not sure how i feel about my own hypothetical.

And if you are about to say still “tough,” let’s throw something else into that. what if a city said “from now on, if there is a crime in a certain part of the city, we just aren’t going to send any cops.” now in that situation, certainly you are fully justified in taking the law into your own hands, right?

so how would the tiller killing be different.

Interesting question.

The police officers who shot and killed Pedro Navarro-Oregon have not, to date, been prosecuted. How would killing them be different from killing George Tiller?

For what it’s worth, people don’t do late-term abortions at all unless something has gone very, very haywire with the pregnancy. This isn’t a case of some flea-brained bimbo saying “Oh, I’m pregnant, and I don’t want to be—off to the clinic!” This is more a case of “Oh, sh*t, if we don’t stop this pregnancy she’s gonna DIE!” And in most, if not all, cases, the fetuses in question are non-viable…that’s “not gonna live no matter how you parse it,” for you public-school graduates out there. So it wouldn’t be murder even if a fetus was a “person,” which I do not believe it is.

Like it or not, the line between “potential person” and “actual person” has always been birth…and I cannot understand the hysterical reaction to abortion.

Jury Nullification has always had the chance of sending a guilty scumbag back onto the streets. However, I’d rather have it there than not.
Fetuus delendi sunt!

Like it or not, the line between “potential person” and “actual person” has always been birth

For a very long time, the line between “person” and “non-person” was skin color. It’s peculiar to see people from the left suddenly becoming defenders of age old tradition in this one instance. Modern science makes it crystal clear that life does not begin at birth.

Aren’t there studies out there that refute the medical neccessity of the great majority of 3rd-trimester abortions?

Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 1/12/2010 @ 1:05 pm

Yep. In fact Congress concluded, after partial birth abortion testimony even from Martin Haskell, a frequent practitioner of late term abortions (see links below), that they could not determine a hypothetical situation in which a partial birth abortion would be necessary.

This is because, by definition, partial birth abortion involves the baby coming through the birth canal just as if it were not going to be killed with a scissors and brain-suction – both normal pregnancy and PBA having the same physical stress on the mother with respect to that part.

52. Don’t think your premise is correct. While med reasons may surface that late, inconvenience is still the primary issue. The so-called med issue is whatever the woman can convince the doc is the problem, including depression at having to raise a kid. Doc isn’t going to be too skeptical, on account of it’s his biz.
Now, we know women can get away with murdering their SO while he’s sleeping because when he wakes up, or maybe next week, he might abuse them. No evidence of the abuse is necessary. So in this case, “imminence” is not the question, but, I would say, presumed inevitability. Wonder if there’s any bleed-over. Sorry

oh. Speaking of the confluence of christianity and violent crime… this is sort of interesting. We were wondering if we could donate books to prisons cause of our friend is going to the Big House. We found this site.

We are always in need of these books:

# African and African-American, Asian and Asian-American, Latino/a and Latin/a-American, and Native-American fiction, history, and studies
# How to start a business
# How to and repair manuals (automotive, carpentry, electric, HVAC)
# How to draw and paint
# Fantasy, science fiction, and westerns
# Spirituality and religion, particularly Buddhism, Paganism, and Wicca
# Drug and alcohol addiction recovery
# Yoga and meditation
# Gay, bisexual, and transgender fiction, history, and studies

that’s interesting, no? Mr. Roeder can read all up about bisexual pagan native american carpentry and such.

“Yep. In fact Congress concluded, after partial birth abortion testimony even from Martin Haskell, a frequent practitioner of late term abortions (see links below), that they could not determine a hypothetical situation in which a partial birth abortion would be necessary.”

So for all of you wanting an actual example of washington bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, here you have it.

There’s a distiction between a partial birth abortion and other types of late term abortions, aren’t there? Wasn’t the point of the articles linked that the specific procedure wasn’t medically needed, not that late term abortions weren’t medically needed? And didn’t Tiller do other types of late term abortions?

“There’s a consensus that murder is a bad thing also, but for some strange reason that leads us to ban the practice rather than allow it.”

Maybe if I explained the context you would understand a bit better — like when we last talked about a congress being in place for 2 years. This is a regulation of an industry. So if there are there doctors practicing this procedure, then they are not part of the consensus. Unless you think their medical opinions are not valid.

Because some doctors know it isn’t medically necessary but do it anyway, to “help the mother” and – all due respect, can’t believe you’re ignoring this elephant in the room – getting paid large amounts of money for a few minutes’ killing work. As someone correctly pointed out above, the presence of Doe v Bolton linked to Roe v. Wade means that depression at being pregnant is a medical reason that justifies abortion at any stage of pregnancy, not just the first three months.

Used to work for two doctors for many years who told me that a local abortionists was known privately as “The Animal” in the medical community due to his large abortion practice added to how he treated some of the women who came to him. These doctors were of the opinion that he actually hated women. When you consider what damage abortion does to women (long term, not just initial relief at not being pregnant anymore) that theory makes a lot of sense.

Unless you think their medical opinions are not valid.

Comment by imdw — 1/12/2010 @ 2:19 pm

It’s not really their medical opinions we’re concerned with here, IMO, but their financial motives.

The vast majority of doctors will have nothing to do with abortion. That really ought to tell anyone with an open mind something.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL are constantly confirming this, BTW, by issuing press releases that “abortion availability’s in danger; so few doctors do them” and trying to convince med schools to force med students to do abortions as part of their training no matter what said med students think about abortion. Nice people.

“trying to convince med schools to force med students to do abortions as part of their training no matter what said med students think about abortion. Nice people.”

I had never considered this. I had to participate in stupid discussions or write papers I didn’t like… I have to submit to PC norms and write tests to the expectations of die hard democrats. That’s nothing. Someone out there wants to force a med student to perform an abortion… in the name of choice.

*on to* I mean … I read about abortion in that John Irving book but I never saw the movie. The Cider House Rules. It had Spiderman in it. It came down on the pro side of the argument is how I remember it.

“As someone correctly pointed out above, the presence of Doe v Bolton linked to Roe v. Wade means that depression at being pregnant is a medical reason that justifies abortion at any stage of pregnancy, not just the first three months. ”

Are we talking about a given procedure, or just late term abortions?

“It’s not really their medical opinions we’re concerned with here, IMO, but their financial motives. ”

Oh I see. So simply allow medical necessity and put some cost controls on there and there goes your financial motives.

“The vast majority of doctors will have nothing to do with abortion. That really ought to tell anyone with an open mind something. ”

For what it’s worth, people don’t do late-term abortions at all unless something has gone very, very haywire with the pregnancy. This isn’t a case of some flea-brained bimbo saying “Oh, I’m pregnant, and I don’t want to be—off to the clinic!” This is more a case of “Oh, sh*t, if we don’t stop this pregnancy she’s gonna DIE!” And in most, if not all, cases, the fetuses in question are non-viable…that’s “not gonna live no matter how you parse it,” for you public-school graduates out there. So it wouldn’t be murder even if a fetus was a “person,” which I do not believe it is.

I managed an inner city medical clinic for close to fifteen years so I got access to a lot of doctors’ medical opinions (the ones I worked for and the opportunity to hear a lot of others’). The reason they shun abortion is because they know it kills a new human life and causes great emotional (and sometimes physical) damage to women, not because they’re scared of anything.

That the terrorists are winning.

Again all due respect, that’s exactly like saying that you don’t beat your wife, not because you love her or anything, but because you saw The Burning Bed and don’t want that to happen to you.

If you’ll forgive me, but I’m going to be one of those trolls who drops a link and then disappears. With that in mind, while thinking about this, especially in terms of nullification, could you just take a moment to read Lincoln’s Lyceum Address? My point, which I think Lincoln’s speech makes, is that we’ve been here before and it’s not a good place to be.

What is so frustrating about the abortion issue is that it solves NOTHING.

The Supreme Court wrongly usurped the citizens’ power to decide this issue amongst themselves.

Overturn Roe v Wade and each state will work out some political compromise within its own set of circumstances and political makeup.

I’ll bet that a few states will outlaw it altogether but most will all considerable freedoms but some reasonable constraints and regulations. The Federal ruling that a minor child need not tell her parents is absurd, for example.

Personally, I’d like to see pre-notification to the husband for a wife’s abortion. I think procreation is still the foundation of the marriage contract and a husband has a right to know.

One big reason for there being such a shortage of doctors who’ll do abortions is because they know that it’ll attract crazies and threats like wearing an “I *HEART* America” shirt in the middle of Al-Qaeda territory. Personally, I think that I could quiet things down considerably if given a free hand: I’d just let it be known that for every act of vandalism against an abortion clinic or doctor’s office, twenty churches would burn, and every murder of a doctor would mean that fifty fundamentalist preachers would be killed. “For one eye, both of yours; for one tooth, your whole mouthful.” After all, if you insist on calling us murders anyway…what have we to lose?

As long as abortion is legal, no man should ever be forced to pay child support and the taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to support some woman’s decision to have a kid or kids she can’t feed. Put those kids up for adoption. And a third trimester fetus can be viable outside the womb. Scott Peterson is on death row not for killing his wife but for killing her AND her unborn child, an aggravating circumstance that qualified the crime for a death penalty. I wonder what Kansas law is in respects to killing a pregnant woman, if it is an aggravating circumstance and that observation is presented to the jury it’s not that far a stretch for the defendant.

As for Tiller, as they say in Texas, the man needed killing. I can’t get myself worked up about an abortionist getting aborted retroactively. Who knows how the jury will vote. That depends on what the courts permit to permit as evidence and defense theory. If manslaughter of some kind is allowed, the odds are even money he could be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.

techno, you seem to be pretty angry. Would it help you to learn that this kind of thing almost never happens? Abortionists are almost never killed. It’s wrong when it happens, but abortionists don’t have to live in fear of Christian terrorists. They are more likely to be killed by any number of other things. Such as lightning strikes or AIDS infections.

So I don’t think you’re right about why doctors don’t conduct abortions. I think doctors work their ass off in order to help people, not kill fetuses to avoid the complications of adoption or whatever.

Take a chill pill before you start promising to murder people and burn churches. I’m not really worried. Perhaps this is unfair (not as unfair as promising to burn churches for unrelated abortion protests) but I associate abortion with laziness in most cases. Men don’t want the hassle of a baby or family, and women don’t want the hassle of a baby or career hampering. Kids are expensive and hard work, and so they are prevented. People like that are not revolutionaries or mass murderers.

For what it’s worth, people don’t do late-term abortions at all unless something has gone very, very haywire with the pregnancy. This isn’t a case of some flea-brained bimbo saying “Oh, I’m pregnant, and I don’t want to be—off to the clinic!” This is more a case of “Oh, sh*t, if we don’t stop this pregnancy she’s gonna DIE!” And in most, if not all, cases, the fetuses in question are non-viable…that’s “not gonna live no matter how you parse it,” for you public-school graduates out there. So it wouldn’t be murder even if a fetus was a “person,” which I do not believe it is.

Gerald A, footsie has shown very clearly over the last couple weeks that his views are very antithetical to Christianity. I have lost all the respect I had for footsie and then some over these last couple weeks. He is venomously hateful to any Christians who actually hold Christian principles.

When push comes to shove in the baby business, doctors have this procedure called a Caesarean and by some strange fluke both the baby and mother usually live through the procedure. Never again use “health of the mom” as your hook upon which to hang killing a baby. Only a fucking a moron would believe that.

I mean seriously do you really think there is no such thing as UNNECCESSARY MEDICAL PROCEDURE? If you think there isn’t, I have a set of Pamela Anderson photos to show you.

Are you really going to say then that you were arguing in good faith and not being a troll as you are constantly accused of being? Are you going to defend yourself from the accusation of being a troll with, “No, A.W., I am too stupid to understand that there are medical procedures that are performed when they are not necessary.” Sorry, I have given you the benefit of the doubt for a while, but combined with your claim that you couldn’t recognize Mao on the Christmas tree ornament (because it would be devastating to your argument that Lott was automatically a racist), I am beginning to believe what other people say here, which is that you don’t argue in good faith.

Dustin

> Someone out there wants to force a med student to perform an abortion… in the name of choice.

Increasingly the left wants to force people to do all sorts of things they have serious moral objections to. Like forcing pharmacists to carry the abortion pill and so on. yes, in the name of choice.

But increasingly it is becoming obvious that the left really doesn’t care about choice. I mean if the right to abortion is anything, it is an extreme application of a right to control your medical destiny. But at the same time, the left wants to control the rest of your medical destiny. And once they make your health into a matter of the public fisc, then the next thing they will do is control what you eat. Don’t believe me? It is already happening in NYC.

So if they are not really about freedom, then I guess the only way to think about it is that they are actually pro-abortion.

“I mean seriously do you really think there is no such thing as UNNECCESSARY MEDICAL PROCEDURE? If you think there isn’t, I have a set of Pamela Anderson photos to show you.”

I give wide latitude to doctors and patients deciding this between themselves. Plus I think if there is a strong consensus that a procedure not be done, then the consensus will be enough to limit that procedure and still give enough leeway for doctors and patients to determine otherwise without a bureaucrat getting in the way.

We handled a textbook example of a case that could have been murder, voluntary manslaughter, or self-defense, depending on how the jury saw it. There was no doubt that the defendant’s husband had been beating her for a long time. So she put a revolver in her apron pocket and at some point she shot and killed him. She was charged with murder. We argued self-defense. The court allowed expert testimony of battered wife syndrome but refused to rule self-defense as a matter of law. We got a self-defense instruction. The jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

I mean let me say this more substantively. When you say, “if it is never necessary, then why ban it” ignores the obvious reality that even you now are forced to admit that sometimes medical procedures are performed that are not necessary.

Now you want to pretend the issue is about whom should decide whether it is necessary. but that is a separate issue, from your indefensible apparent argument that people, or at least doctors, never do anything that is unnecessary.

So its a false answer ignoring your idiot argument, an argument so idiotic that i simply can’t believe it was made in good faith. So you are hereby excused from grown up discussions and as far as i am concerned when you write something, it doesn’t exist.

This defense would enable anyone to plan and execute someone on sole basis of their ‘beliefs’, no matter how crazy they were, as long as the person sincerely believed it – and how exactly do we determine that?

In theory, a precedent like this would allow a person to murder a politician who advocated a war (such as President Bush when he was advocating war with Iraq), a politician opposed to healthcare reform, a prominent commentator they believed was causing harm to the country, or a scientist working on weapons for the Defense Department, all in the name of potentially saving lives.

There is a reason we don’t allow defenses such as this, and shouldn’t. It would generate anarchy.

imdw – Under Obamacare, maybe apart from abortion which is sacrosanct to the left, it will be the government making decisions which procedures are unnecessary. Sucks to be a supporter of universal healthcare, doesn’t it.

Late term abortion never happens as a last minute change of heart. It is only practiced when the baby will be born with defects or the mothers life is at risk. What child should be born to kill their mother?

As for first trimester abortion, the cell in the womb is a zygote. It has the DNA make up of a hair follicle removed from the head. Therefore it doesn’t have a consciousness (the defining factor that separates humans from animals) and therefore is not a living human being. Which means it isnt murder.

I am so proud to live in a country where abortion is free and legal with very few protests from narrow minded fundamentalist neanderthals (they are a dime a dozen).

Good luck america, I hope the legal system supports the lives of living and life saving surgeons. I hope one day the killings of much needed doctors, who often save the lives of potential mothers, stops along with the bombing of the clinics where they perform these life saving procedures. Terrorist and godless behaviour to prove a fundamentalist christian point that has been disregarded by modern science.

Carrying a pregnancy full term carries a lot more risk that abortions. 6500 women die daily in childbirth worldwide.
I don’t know the global stats, but in New Zealand and Australia, no woman had died from receiving an abortion, or abortion related complications.

I extend a big thankyou to all the doctors still practicing their legal practice regardless of the risks, and in doing so help the lives of the woman in all walks of life – young, old, raped, ill, career orientated, financially challenged and whatever other categories.

gemma, can you show some kind of evidence that this kind of abortion has always been used to save the life of the mother?

It’s hard to understand how that’s even possible, since she has to give birth to the child, partially, in order to have this procedure. That sounds about as dangerous as normal birth. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is for your so called ‘defective’ babies.

I’m amused that you say animals lack consciousness, and this consciousness is what defines a human being. You are truly a scientist. I suppose you think it’s OK to kill you in your sleep? After all, you won’t be conscious until tomorrow… like many fetuses.

I bet abortionists are killed less frequently than late term abortions kill babies in cases where the mother would have survived childbirth. You may not know this, but abortionists being killed is an extremely rare occurrence.

Webster’s Dictionary lists a person as “being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.”
Since physically, the foetus relies on the the mother and the mothers nutrients and her organs to survive, means it is not existing as a whole.
After a baby is born, it socially depends on others to live, but physically it is independent and therefore an indivisible whole.

“Our self-awareness, our sentient consciousness is what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.”
(http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#human)

A baby isn’t born conscious, they start to obtain it through sensory perception and experience from when they are born, not in the womb.
And by the way, I don’t know about you Dustin, but I am conscious in my sleep as are most concsious human beings. Subconciousness is still conciousness,

I would like to know how many people in this debate have ever had an abortion, been the partner of a woman who has considered one, or even had an unplanned pregnancy? That would make your arguments more power of persuasion for me personally. Some kind of experience would make your opinion more worthy, so let me know. Strangely enough every person avidly against it that i have come across, is male and therefore would never be in the position of needing the choice.

“You may not know this, but abortionists being killed is an extremely rare occurrence.”

Ofcourse, the killings don’t happen often, but the risk and the threat of it occurring are ever present. Nobody in a legal profession should have to face that threat everyday.
Killing a living person is wrong right?

I got this covered. How about this thread I started? In it my daughter, who was unplanned (born 6 months after I got married), says:

Well well, I would like to say thanks to all who congratuated my pops on his grandson, who just happens to be my son!

Also if I could go back to another instance in history where we wanted to claim that certain people weren’t people at all, but were in fact, property. If I destroy my couch, no trouble will come to me. If I bash in my Jeep windows, nothing will happen to me. Why? Because they are my property. But, in slave days, if you kill YOUR slave, you risked jail time, or a fine. How does that make any sense? That is your property, right? But even then, it was recognized that they were still human, to an extent, as did the 3/5 compromise.

So… if my “fetus” is not human, why should I have to even give permission to “terminate” him? Why should that even matter? And why does it all suddenly change when I reach 28 weeks pregnant? Are you saying that on Dec 9th, Treyshawn, my son, was not human, but while I was sleeping in my bed at midnight on Dec 10, the baby fairy came in and turned him into a human? And if he’s still not human until he is born, why can’t I abort him at 39 weeks?

No, see, the reasoning is that once he reaches the 28 week mark, he has a 90% chance of survival if he is born, so if the “doctor” pulls him out and kills him at this point, then it is blatent, even to liberals, that a murder was committed.

A comment higher up said something along the lines of “no lib would abort him if the mom didnt want to”. That did not answer the question that was asked, and completely side stepped the point. The point is, giving a woman permission to abort that child is giving her permission to commit murder. And that is what liberals want to do.

Now do not read this and think that I am on the defensive because that is my little boy at the top of this page. When I got pregnant, I did not want to be, even a teeny tiny bit, and his dad didn’t want a baby right now either. But the thought of murdering my precious baby never once entered my mind. Adoption did, but never would I kill my baby. Did you know that at 10 weeks and sometimes earlier, you can see and hear their teenie tiny heart beating? Yep. So tell me that’s not murder, lie to me some more, but I figured out the truth all on my own way back when I was a little child. My dad even has a blog around here somewhere about it.

You will also see more than that one adult woman speaking out against abortion in that thread.

Here, you will see a story of several women who most definitely had unplanned pregnancies. And you will see at least 3 adult woman commentators who stand up against abortion, even in this instance.

Gemma, you didn’t really respond to me, and you probably don’t even understand that.

As I said, abortionists are never murdered in this country, or at least, never by your definition of never. It happens so rarely that it’s ridiculous to use it as a trend or a bludgeon against Christianity in the US.

You say that Partial Birth Abortion is always to save the life of the mother, and that isn’t true. I also pointed out that animals have consciousness, and that you do not when you are asleep. You said it was OK to kill fetuses that aren’t conscious yet… you aren’t conscious yet when you sleep. Explain the difference.

Make a point that is relevant to the argument you claim to support. Don’t demand I admit some banal point about murder that isn’t relevant.

Oh, and the science shows a partial-birth abortion is much harder on the woman than a full-birth. And there is never any scientifically valid reason for partial-birth abortion. There is no scientifically valid reason for an abortion after week 24 as the baby can survive outside the womb at that stage. And I don’t believe there is a scientifically valid reason for abortion prior to week 24, either.

Death penalty is a punishment for when someone breaks the law, this doctor didn’t break the law. His murderer did and therefore should be aborted, right?
Is the death penalty the same as abortion?
Is a person as bad as the their worst action? Theres a whole new debate to be had here.

But thankyou for the womans point of view, it has an entirely different feel to read her words. I still feel the same, and think every woman deserves a choice and also deserves respect the to she can exercise her right to choice.
Some women just arent equipped mentally, physically and financially to accommodate for a baby.
Adoption can be a lot harder, carrying it, giving birth to then giving it away to someone and unable to see it knowing it is out there somewhere would be extremely hard.
And Sometimes contraception fails unfortunately and there are few options.
What if the mother was a heroin addict, and the cell in her belly was therefore already an addict itself.
Would it not be responsible to spare that potential human being the misery of being born addicted.

And i don’t have proof that partial births are only performed in the event of sparing the mother’s health, or preventing the birth of a disabled child, but in most places I have been that is strictly the legal requirement. I work with hospitals.
I don’t think anyone should abort in the late term if that was not the case, I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t be traumatic for everyone involved.

dustin, if you read my earlier posts i commented on the consciousness thing.
I don’t feel the need to go over it again an if you don’t understand what consciousness is, read Carl Jung’s “Memories, Dreams, Reflections”

Why would it be relevant that a baby can survive when 24 weeks old? Some pregnancies are dangerous to the mother, though I don’t think you admit that it’s scientifically valid to terminate the child if the pregnancy could kill the mother (And I sincerely doubt you entertain some notion of delivering a 24 week old child in this situation as scientifically valid)

I don’t see why partial birth abortion would be “much harder” than childbirth. It’s a very similar process as far as I know, but I’m happy to be correct on this. It’s a grotesque murder, so it’s harder in non medical ways.

If abortion is murder, you don’t have to lie about the science or redefine it. There are cases where abortion is medically indicated. It’s possible to be pregnant twice, but not with twins (some women have more than one uterus), such that allowing both pregnancies to fully develop will result in death for all involved. OR whatever, it’s a wild world out there with plenty of sad pregnancies. I have to know what you consider scientifically valid before I can answer.

(And I sincerely doubt you entertain some notion of delivering a 24 week old child in this situation as scientifically valid)

Why not? If continuing the pregnancy beyond 24 weeks will kill the mother, it will also kill the baby. Delivering the baby will, then, prevent the mother’s death and will also give the baby a better-than-50 percent chance to survive.

Partial-birth abortion: You induce the mother into hard labor. You then turn the baby so it comes out breech (much harder on the mother). You then force the baby to remain partially born (harder on the mother than allowing full delivery) while you suck its brains out and crush its head. So you have a forced delivery with an elongated delivery process where the process itself, without being elongated, is harder on the mother.

And, Dustin, do try not to call me a liar. That is highly offensive to me.

And quality of life is a non-starter with me. I mean, why not euthanize Stephen Hawking? Or how about those with alzheimers? Or my cousin, who spent over a month in a coma due to a severe accident as a child where the doctors didn’t know if he’d ever come out of it?

I am very liberal, and you are very not John. We are never going to agree. But i understand the point you are making. but as a young women of modern times, I am so thankful that I have the choice to give birth or not and I will exercise my right to do that, like every other woman does if she is lucky to have that right.
The horror that went on before legal abortions is sickening. People would profit from a pregnant young woman’s desperation, and then often leave her to bleed to death. Now we are blessed with a choice and people are going to exercise that right no matter what people try to tell them.
Yay for choice!!

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops takes a clear stance, “…it makes no sense to say one must kill a child who is more than half born to advance the mother’s health instead of simply completing a live delivery.

The American Medical Association has said that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. To claim it as a constitutional right makes a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. There is no place in a civilized society for this cruel and dangerous practice, and we look forward to today’s decision being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Note: this quote is part of the “weaker” con side after the “stronger” pro side.

I don’t need to see that, i have witnessed more than one. I am a nurse, i know what happens, i also know how relieved most women are for having the choice. But it is still a sugery, and explicit material.
Thanks for trying to show me explicit material, but I know what one looks like thank you. I wonder how your grandchild or daughter would feel if they were stumble across one of your links, have some decency.

And you were being oh so civilized when you resorted to blue innuendo.

And if abortion is just a medical procedure, what is wrong with showing it? I mean you can watch open-heart surgery on TV. Is it just because you have something to hide? That’s it, isn’t it? You have something to hide.

> Webster’s Dictionary lists a person as “being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.”

The problem with that theory is it proves too much. By that approach, a Siamese twin is not a person.

> A baby isn’t born conscious, they start to obtain it through sensory perception and experience from when they are born, not in the womb.

That is hogwash. I have seen babies just born that were clearly conscious. Clearly you are either full of it, or despite allegedly being a nurse you have literally never seen a baby born. And for that matter, if there is no consciousness why is it that study after study has shown that playing classical music to a baby in the womb results in higher math skills?

You seem to think that a baby in the womb is in some kind of cone of silence and darkness. Do you really think the baby hears nothing at all? And I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that even through several layers of flesh, light still comes through the way that if you hold a flashlight against your palm, you can see your hand light up.

The notion that a baby has no sentience at all until they are born is frankly unscientific.

> I would like to know how many people in this debate have ever had an abortion, been the partner of a woman who has considered one, or even had an unplanned pregnancy?

Well, and equally, how many of you have been aborted? *rolls eyes* the point of my joke being about your selective compassion.

Of course I can name someone in that position. My mother. A long time ago, my mother went out with a man who eventually “date raped” her. By the mores of her day, she thought that meant she was spoiled for all other men by losing her virginity, so she stayed with him (yes that is f—ed up), and she assented in a sense to more sex. One day she came down pregnant. Prince of a man, the father ran out on her. And she carried the baby to term and then gave him away for adoption. That is right, somewhere in the world is a half-brother I never met. And she is anti-abortion. So suck on that.

> Strangely enough every person avidly against it that i have come across, is male and therefore would never be in the position of needing the choice.

I suppose then you never met Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade. She actually did abort her child and now feels she shouldn’t have and that her case was wrongly decided.

Seriously to pretend there are no pro-life women is just ignoring reality.

> Killing a living person is wrong right?

Not if it is necessary to prevent the death of other living people.

> this doctor didn’t break the law.

He was accused of serious law breaking and the governor had no interest in looking into it.

> Is a person as bad as the their worst action?

If a man is about to kill your family, and you instead shoot him, this isn’t about bad or good, but removing a danger. For instance, suppose the man was so insane that he is strangling your daughter but in his mind he thinks he is squeezing oranges rather than her windpipe. The law is clear that this man was not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, and yet even as this man is not committing a crime, you are allowed to kill him to protect your family.

> Some women just arent equipped mentally, physically and financially to accommodate for a baby.

Gee, if only there was a way a woman could give birth to a baby and not have to take care of it. Gosh, does any person have any ideas that we could ADOPT that would allow a woman to carry a baby to term, give birth, and then not have to take care of the baby? Any ideas at all worth ADOPTING?

By the way, I love throwing in the word financially. Because as Ginsberg noted, for some this is what the right to abortion is all about: making sure the lower classes don’t reproduce so much.

Oh no, wait, you do remember adoption exists with this morally blinkered line:

> Adoption can be a lot harder, carrying it, giving birth to then giving it away to someone and unable to see it knowing it is out there somewhere would be extremely hard.

Lol, adoption is so painful, I would rather just kill the fetus! Didn’t OJ Simpson have a similar attitude toward Nicole Brown: I miss you so much I am going to kill you!

Didn’t Susan Smith have a similar idea? She wanted to kill herself, and decided that her children were better off dead than living without her. So you see, she was being compassionate.

> What if the mother was a heroin addict, and the cell in her belly was therefore already an addict itself.

Oh, you are right. Being an addict is worse than death. So I suppose all of the addicts will go and kill themselves now, right? Or perhaps you favor the death penalty for the crime of addiction?

> Would it not be responsible to spare that potential human being the misery of being born addicted.

Better not to exist at all than to have a tough life. Wow, brilliant.

> or preventing the birth of a disabled child

Mmm, yes, we can’t have any more “useless eaters,” can we?

> read Carl Jung’s

Sorry, but he and his ilk are largely quacks, witch doctors. There is very little science in psychiatry.

> The horror that went on before legal abortions is sickening. People would profit from a pregnant young woman’s desperation

And they don’t now? Tiller was a multi-millionaire.

imdw

> Why not also show your kids some slaughterhouse vids before serving them meat.

Actually I think at some point in their lives children should confront what they are actually eating. They should be made to understand that in order to create that hamburger, something had to die. Mind you, I am an avid meatatarian, but I think we should really know what we are doing. It should be at an appropriate age, but yes. Of course my wife is Asian American so most of her family does the “food with faces on it” thing at dinner. I admit I am squeamish enough that I can’t stand to eat anything that is looking at me as I do eat him/her.

> Jesse Rapp wasn’t born until May, but he and his parents were playing together long before that.

> At night, Morgan often rested his head on Richele’s pregnant belly, calling Jesse by name and feeling him wriggle in response. Sometimes the couple would play games. They’d gently poke first one side of Richele’s abdomen, then the other, and watch as Jesse followed their touch by poking the same side back. They even teased him by poking the same side twice and laughed as he poked the “wrong” side back.

> All their prenatal shenanigans paid off. In the recovery room, it seemed abundantly clear Jesse recognized his parents right away, turning his head in their direction when either one spoke. When he cried, he’d calm down instantly at the sound of their voices.

> “It was so exciting because there was this trust and communication and a certain sense of bonding between us right away,” says Morgan Rapp. “And for him, I think, it was reassuring because he had a sense already of where he was.”

> A baby isn’t born conscious, they start to obtain it through sensory perception and experience from when they are born, not in the womb.

That is hogwash. I have seen babies just born that were clearly conscious. Clearly you are either full of it, or despite allegedly being a nurse you have literally never seen a baby born. And for that matter, if there is no consciousness why is it that study after study has shown that playing classical music to a baby in the womb results in higher math skills?

No citation on this ‘study’? Does this ‘study’ prove a causal relationship? If either of these answers is no then shut up about said ‘study’.